Philosophy Essay Sample on Problem of Evil and Descartes's Theory of Knowledge

Problem of Evil

The concept of evil has become an increasing area of interest to legal, moral, and political philosophers since World War II. Generally, there are two concepts of evil; a narrow concept and a broad concept. In the broad sense, evil is any bad state of affairs, character flaw, or wrongful action. The broad concept of evil is further divided into natural evils and moral evils (Van Inwagen 8). While natural evil generally refers to the bad state of affairs which is not as a result of moral agents' negligence, moral evil is as a result of negligence or intentions of moral agents ("Evil"). This broad concept of evil is the type of evil as referenced in theological teachings. However, the narrow concept of evil looks at human beings as the agents of evil, since they are the only ones capable of performing evil actions ("Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"). The narrow concept of evil is the concept applicable in legal, moral, and political contexts. The question of evil has been an area of interest to many philosophers as they try to differentiate the relationship of evil with human's legal, political, and moral discourse of thinking.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

One of the fundamental challenges of the belief in God is the problem of evil. The debate behind the relation between Gods existence and the existence of evil is how could an all-good God create and allow for the existence of a world that is full of suffering and misery (Van Inwagen 10). Philosophers point out to this contradiction; the existence of evil and the existence of an omnipotent, all good God ("God and Evil | Issue 8 | Philosophy Now"). The existence of God hence is questioned in two ways. If God is indeed benevolent and omnipotent, he ought to have created a wholly good man; hence, he probably does not exist ("Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"). If he does then, the existence of evil will infer that he exists but he is not benevolent and omnipotent ("God and Evil | Issue 8 | Philosophy Now"). In response to this contradiction, some theologians like St. Augustine, view that evil is illusory and that it does not exist in an actual sense.

The theist view, however, denotes that God was in a position of creating a wholly good man if indeed he is an all-good God. Chiefly, if God created a wholly good man, then this means that man would be completely helpless in bringing about his good actions (Van Inwagen 9). Further, it would mean that man would not be in a position to decide on his moral actions and such; this would amount to determinism ("God and Evil | Issue 8 | Philosophy Now"). However, evildoers should be held fully accountable for their actions since they choose to perpetuate evil. God created man with the ability to choose between good and evil; the invocation of a free will.

Furthermore, the evidential problem of evil assesses the extent to which the existence of God is challenged by the existence of evil. The arguments from this view hold that it is highly unlikely that the world was created by a wholly good being, omniscient, and omnipotent if we put away any possible evidence there might be on God's existence ("Problem of Evil: Evidential Arguments from Evil"). The evidence here is the historical proof for scripture reliability and the evidence of design in nature. This view is not similar to the logical arguments from evil. The view aims at showing it is logically impossible to have God existing in a world full of evil ("Problem of Evil: Evidential Arguments from Evil"). Through the use of statements such as a good God would destroy evil, and since he does not, then he certainly does not exist.

The point of pointless evil holds that if God is all good, then the existence of evil ought to be pointless. Chiefly, if truly God exists, then the pointless evil present in the world should not be there; but since there is pointless evil, then God does not exist. Notably, a pointless evil is non-justifiable horrendous For example, the occurrence of death of innocent event ("Evidential Problem of Evil, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy"). children in earthquakes suffering greatly before death is a pointless evil if God exists. An all knowing God would surely know the happening of such events in advance, and possibly prevent them from happening. However, we see that pointless evil exists; therefore, the existence of God is false.

Skeptical theist response seeks to address the traditional forms of theism that the thoughts of man and those of God are too far from each other. In response to this traditional theist view, Stephen Wykstra developed the "Condition of Reasonable Epistemic Access" (CORNEA) to criticize Rowe's evidential argument ("Problem of Evil: Evidential Arguments from Evil"). Generally, this view agrees with Gods existence but at the same time, demur on the challenge of explaining the existence of evil in the world. The view is based on three principles. First is the representativeness of the sample, which holds that the samples available of good and evil are not a representative of the totality of good and evil. Secondly, the view holds the principle of low-seeability ("Evidential Problem of Evil, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy"). This principle means that we cannot expect to see everything due to their nature. Finally, the approach uses the principle of multiple cognitive limitations, which holds that human's ability to make inferences about Gods existence is limited as we are faced with a number of serious limitations in relation to knowledge.

The limitations of the skeptical theist response lie in the tenets it holds in its arguments. Chiefly, just as the approach holds that man cannot challenge the existence of God since the inferences are made from bad affairs, and then making inferences about good affairs is also untrue in this case. In other words, the view is successful in challenging itself. Why would man argue that God exists, bearing in mind the concept of multiple cognitive limitations? Thus, the skeptical theist response does not in any way challenge the inferences made to challenge the existence of God but rather, questions theist inferences about God existence. They are limited in their thoughts and hence cannot argue that indeed God is the mastermind behind all good deeds.

Descartes’s Theory of Knowledge

Descartes referred as the father of modern philosophy developed his theory of knowledge by defining knowledge in terms of doubt. He differentiated rigorous knowledge from lesser convictions. In doing so, he argued that knowledge is conviction resulting from reason and it is so strong that no force is strong enough to take away, while in conviction, doubt is possible as there remains some reason which may result to doubt. In so doing, he valued rigorous knowledge than lesser grades of conviction (Michael J. Green). In other words, he understands doubt as for the contrast of certainty. He argued that as certainly increased, doubt significantly decreased and as doubt increased, then certainly definitely decreased ("Lecture Notes, UC Davis Philosophy 102, Theory of Knowledge: Descartes"). Knowledge requires perfect or complete certainty, which in turn requires the entire absence of doubt. He further defines undoubtability as the inability to undermine one's conviction.

Descartes considered large classes of beliefs at the beginning of his investigations. One such belief was the existence of physical objects including his own body. In his view, he saw that there is doubt in our existence if we only believe to be physical objects based on our senses ("Lecture Notes, UC Davis Philosophy 102, Theory of Knowledge: Descartes"). This concern came after he had a series of dreams. He sometimes dreamt sitting by the fire while he was in his bed in an actual sense (Michael J. Green). Such scenarios made him doubt his own physical existence. He found that there was room for rational doubts, for perhaps all images in a person's head were based on dreams.

Descartes further discussed the unreliability of the sense perception. He doubted whether the information man receives through the senses are entirely accurate. In a bid to undertake a new rebirth, Descartes threw away everything he ever knew and refusing to believe even the obviously known basic premises. This was his act of demolition and reconstruction. He attacked the very foundation that sense perception could convey accurate information, and thus, he refused to believe anything from sense until he satisfactorily proved it to himself. He developed several arguments such as the Dream argument and the Deceiving God and Evil Demon arguments ("Lecture Notes, UC Davis Philosophy 102, and Theory of Knowledge: Descartes"). In the dream argument, he refuses to believe in his senses as they make him feel heat both in a dream and in an actual sense. In such, he is unable to believe in his senses. In the Deceiving God and Evil arguments, Descartes refuses to believe in his senses as they are vulnerable to deception by superior beings. Thus, he entirely rules out everything he has believed from his senses and subjects it to scrutiny.

On the existence of an external world, Descartes uses two proofs; the first proof is in the Meditations (PEWN) and the other one in the principles of philosophy (PEWP) ("Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." One of the major conclusions of Meditation 3 by Descartes is that he is not alone in this world, but something else that is the origin of his ideas also exists (Cottingham 80). He further states that God necessarily exists and that he is not a deceiver. On the argument that God is not a deceiver, he argues that God is a supremely perfect infinite substance. These ideas by Descartes are highly criticized by Princess Elizabeth of Bohemia ("Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"). Throughout the First Meditation on Philosophy, Descartes defines mind-body dualism ("Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." He argues that he is distinct from his body and can exist without it as there is a thinking thing in him.

Elisabeth, Princess Palatine of Bohemia (1618-1680) refutes Descartes idea of the separation between the body and the mind. She challenges Descartes to explain to her how voluntary actions can be produced by a man's soul determining the spirits. In other words, her concern is how an immaterial substance can act on a material being. Her concern is the issue of causation operating between the mind and the body ("Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)"). She generally argues that there is a contradiction in his view of the mind and the body existing as distinct ("Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." In response to Elizabeth's claims on the mind-body dualism by Descartes, Descartes dedicates Principles of Philosophy to Elizabeth in which he presents his metaphysics and lays out his physics in detail.

Works Cited

"The Concept of Evil (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 26 Nov. 2013, plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/.

Cottingham, John. "Descartes', Sixth Meditation: The External World, 'Nature' and Human Experience." Royal Institute of Philosophy Lecture Series, vol. 20, 1986, pp. 73-89.

"Descartes' Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/.

"Elisabeth, Princess of Bohemia (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, plato.stanford.edu/entries/elisabeth-bohemia/#MinBodIntNatMin.

"Evidential Problem of Evil, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy | An Encyclopedia of Philosophy Articles Written by Pr...